✨ Add lifecycle hooks for chained-upgrade #12878
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/XXL
fabriziopandini
force-pushed
the
add-chained-upgrade-lifecyclehooks
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e8af4c6 to
44888d3
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure why diff is so bad 😓
what I did is
- minor adjustments to TestComputeControlPlaneVersion
- drop TestComputeControlPlaneVersion_callAfterControlPlaneUpgrade and TestComputeControlPlaneVersion_callBeforeClusterUpgrade_trackIntentOfCallingAfterClusterUpgrade because they are replaced by the new test in lifecycle_hooks_test.go
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks better if you enable "ignore whitespace diff"
fabriziopandini
force-pushed
the
add-chained-upgrade-lifecyclehooks
branch
from
44888d3 to
cae6d82
Compare
|
/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main |
fabriziopandini
force-pushed
the
add-chained-upgrade-lifecyclehooks
branch
from
cae6d82 to
21b0d44
Compare
|
/test pull-cluster-api-e2e-main |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks better if you enable "ignore whitespace diff"
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func validateHookRequest(request runtimehooksv1.RequestObject, wantRequest runtimehooksv1.RequestObject) error { | ||
| if request, ok := request.(*runtimehooksv1.BeforeClusterUpgradeRequest); ok { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why can't this just be a simple compare between two types? (e.g. with cmp.Diff)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did not use cmp.diff because there was already specific code to validate the cluster parameter in the request and I did not want to loose this coverage, so I extended it to validate specifically the additional parameters we care about for each request types
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Setting Cluster to equal and then using cmp.Diff seems much safer to me
Let's remember to extend this check when we introduce new fields to the types
sbueringer
added
the
tide/merge-method-squash
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 09871b784dc24e0ea897c3c07b1bb2b517f53056
|
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: sbueringer The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
3 participants
What this PR does / why we need it:
Add new lifecycle hooks / change existing hooks as defined by the lifecycle hooks proposal.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Rif #12720